V. D. BHARGAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from order against an order refusing to issue a temporary injunction pending the disposal of a suit. The plaintiff, early in 1951, brought a suit against Maharaja Sri Pateshwari prasad Singh, defendant respondent, for a declaration that he was an under-proprietor of certain plots in dispute. On 7-1-1952, an application was moved for injunction praying that during the pendency of the suit the respondent be restrained from alienating the property in dispute. This application was considered by the learned Civil Judge and he, on 12-11-1952, dismissed the application. He held that there was a prima facie case of the plaintiff but he found that there was no likelihood of any irreparable loss and, therefore, the injunction was refused. Aggrieved by that decision the plaintiff filed this appeal against that order.

( 2 ) DURING the pendency of this appeal an application was moved in this Court by the appellant for issue of an ad interim injunction pending the disposal of the appeal. An ex parte order of injunction was issued but later on when that application was contested, the opposite party respondent offered to place out of the proceeds obtained by him a sum of Rs. 90,000/- to be held in deposit by this Court so that if the Court came to the conclusion that any rights of the plaintiff had been interfered with, compensation may be made to him from this sum. That offer of the opposite party was accepted by the Court and he was directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 90,000/- when he was to sell the property. In case the opposite party failed to deposit the amount, a right was given to the applicant to bring that matter to the notice of the Court.

( 3 ) THE suit ultimately was dismissed on 14-1-1956. Thereafter a regular first appeal against that decision was filed in this Court on 15-3-1956, which is First Appeal No. 19 of 1956 and is pending in this Court. Along with the appeal, an application under Order XLI, Rule 5 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed for the stay of the sale of the land in suit and the stay of the execution of decree for casts. That application was rejected by this Court on the ground that even if the sale takes place, the doctrine of lis pendens will apply to it and the interest of the appellant would not, in any way, be jeopardised, since whoever would purchase the property would be bound by the result of the appeal in this Court. In the circumstances this Court thought no reason to stay the sale of the property. This order was passed by the Court on the 20th March, 1956.

( 4 ) AFTER the dismissal of the suit, a sale deed dated the 4th February. 1956, was executed which was registered on the 27th February, 1956, and it purported to be of 13 Bighas 11 Biswas and 14 biswansis pukhta land in village Dogawan, pargana and tahsil Lucknow, in favour of the governor of Uttar Pradesh for a consideration of Rs. 2,31,172-8-0. An application was moved in this Court by the appellant on the 2-3-1959, to the effect that the opposite party had failed to deposit the sum of Rs. 90,000/-, as he had undertaken and, therefore, he should be suitably dealt with. A counter-application to that application has also been filed in this Court. We have at the present moment two matters for our disposal. The first is the appeal itself and the second is the application moved by the opposite party purporting to be under Order xxxix, Rule 2 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the Code.

( 5 ) SO far as the appeal itself is concerned, in our opinion it has become infructuous. This was an appeal against an order refusing an ad interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. Even if we had accepted the appeal and allowed the order, it could enure for the benefit of the plaintiff only during the pendency of the suit itself. In the application for injunction dated 7-1-1952 filed in the trial court, it was clearly prayed that the opposite party be restrained from tran

Click Here to Read the rest of this document